[tdwg-content] Taxonomic name usage files

[Nico Franz]

Thanks, Rich, for catching me up.

   So then if we can apparently cover a good bit of ground (with what I
assume you'd call a "smart [or the only] way of implementing GNUB"), this
does raise the question of how to bring this as close as possible to the
peer-review/publication process where an author team may be motivated to
express their intentions related to name usages in various explicit,
structurally recorded ways.

Best, Nico


On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> > 1. Given a multitude of well established and precise historical name
> usages, I explicitly don't want to commit to one in particular
> > that my present usage is congruent with, or not. (Indeed, I kind of
> think this is what the name withOUT a sec. does, "explicitly").
>
> Yes! Exactly!
>
> > I choose to be vague - any past usage is ok with me, here.
>
> During the TCS days, this is what we referred to as a "Nomenclatural
> Concept", which is roughly the sum/average of all historical treatments,
> more or less (ambiguity and vagueness deliberate/intentional).
>
> > I think we can presently model the vagueness (by integrating on the
> strings alone), but not the deliberateness thereof (in contrast to other
> situations where vagueness is not intended)?
>
> Yes - a TNU without any relationshipAssertions.  Basically, the only
> implied associations with other TNUs is via the Protonym link (i.e., a
> Nomenclatural Assertion).
>
> > 2. Franz. 2010. Revision of Apotomoderes (Insecta: Coleoptera). =>
> Actually, "Insecta" here is more of a social concession to an outdated data
> filing paradigm than
> > a claim to an active speaker role (related to name usages that I
> actually care about). I am not intending to apply my taxonomic expertise to
> "Insecta";
> > that is *out of scope* (though the string is being written).
>
> So... in that case, the question is whether to represent "Insecta" as used
> in Franz 2010 as a scientific name, or  vernacular name (two different ways
> of modelling names, as the latter do not have structured Codes).  Even if
> you fall on the side of using it as a scientific (taxon) name, you can
> still create a TNU for it.  In the spirit of Walter's pioneering work on
> this stuff, TNUs only represent "potential" taxa.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20160419/47167f0e/attachment.html>